To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

THE VOLANTE
Vol. VI. APRIL, 1893. No. 7.
------
LITERARY CRITICISM AND ITS FUNCTIONS.
M. J. PETERS, '94.
Before entering" upon the question of the functions
of literary criticism, it may be well to
clear our field by pointing out certain performances,
which, though they are pretentious enough to
claim it, have no right to the title of literary criticism.
It is perhaps unnecessary to make any comment
whatever on the absurdity of applying the name
criticisim to the lying puffs and advertisements of
wretched productions with which irresponsible
men and newspapers attempt to deceive the public.
But there is a line of philological research, having
for its field especially the older literature, that
is often successfully passed off as literary criticism.
Volumes are written, monuments of solid labor and
learning, concerning roots, words, grammatical
constructions and other technicalities. Almost every
letter of the unfortunate works that fall into the
hands of such critics, is thoroughly scrutinized and
no less thoroughly discussed; but the thought and
sentiment of the work, as well as the higher
elements of style are left unconsidered. These
technical critics have their uses. They stand in
about the same relation to the literary critic as a
hodman to a mason. They help to sift and arrange
the material; but have no claim to any further
merit. A work consisting of technical criticism,
as a rule does not arouse in the reader any interest
in literature. On the contrary, hy its absurd pretentions
of completeness it has often succeeded, not
only In disgusting the cultivated with criticism but
also with literature itself.
Along with these mistakes concerning the nature
of criticism, we find misconceptions of its purpose.
Some conceive of criticism as having an end in itself
and imagine, that when they have read an exhaustive
criticism of a work or of a literature,
they have studied literature itself. The detriment
of such an unreasoning conception of criticism is
apparent. It is not the office of criticism to take
the place of literature and the critic, who attempts
to reproduce the work criticised, forgets that even
the very best representation which he can give is
rendered unnecessary and is excelled by the perusal
of the work itself.
On the contrary the function of true criticism is
to furnish a guide for PERSONAL STUDY OF LITERATURE.
Accordingly, criticism should be accepted in a suggestive
way rather than as an absolute decision, and
while a critic, by the very nature of his work, is
often forced to make positive assertions, this
need not harm a person who uses criticism in
an intelligent manner, namely, as a stimulus for
personal research, appreciation and enjoyment.
Having thus, in a general way determined upon
the true functions of literary criticism, we have a
standard by which we can estimate the relative value
of different methods of criticism. If a method is
capable of serving as a true guide for personal study,
if it furthermore brings with it a stimulus for personal
research, appreciation and enjoyment, then it
must be classed as true criticism: if it does not accomplish
these ends, or does so only partially, it
will be open to objection.
The first method we shall consider is the most
common and primitive, — criticism founded upon
personal taste and considerations. There is a tendency
in man to criticise a work on the general
vague impression that it makes upon him, and this
tendency is especially pronounced in an uneducated
person. If the views, sentiments, and
intellectual range of a literary work happen
to be in line with his own, such a man is apt
to pronounce and recommend it at once, as
one of the best books he ever read. But
should the book perchance be against his pet
ideas or sentiments he would in all probability see
no good in it; and should its range of thought surpass
his power of comprehension he would be liable
to decry it. as dull, tiresome and uninteresting.

Images from this collection may be downloaded for non-commercial educational and research purposes on the condition that The University of South Dakota, Archives and Special Collections is credited as the source. For permission to use a particular item for any other purpose, such as publishing, video production, exhibits, product presentations, interior design, or advertising, you must contact The University of South Dakota, Archives and Special Collections. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright.

THE VOLANTE
Vol. VI. APRIL, 1893. No. 7.
------
LITERARY CRITICISM AND ITS FUNCTIONS.
M. J. PETERS, '94.
Before entering" upon the question of the functions
of literary criticism, it may be well to
clear our field by pointing out certain performances,
which, though they are pretentious enough to
claim it, have no right to the title of literary criticism.
It is perhaps unnecessary to make any comment
whatever on the absurdity of applying the name
criticisim to the lying puffs and advertisements of
wretched productions with which irresponsible
men and newspapers attempt to deceive the public.
But there is a line of philological research, having
for its field especially the older literature, that
is often successfully passed off as literary criticism.
Volumes are written, monuments of solid labor and
learning, concerning roots, words, grammatical
constructions and other technicalities. Almost every
letter of the unfortunate works that fall into the
hands of such critics, is thoroughly scrutinized and
no less thoroughly discussed; but the thought and
sentiment of the work, as well as the higher
elements of style are left unconsidered. These
technical critics have their uses. They stand in
about the same relation to the literary critic as a
hodman to a mason. They help to sift and arrange
the material; but have no claim to any further
merit. A work consisting of technical criticism,
as a rule does not arouse in the reader any interest
in literature. On the contrary, hy its absurd pretentions
of completeness it has often succeeded, not
only In disgusting the cultivated with criticism but
also with literature itself.
Along with these mistakes concerning the nature
of criticism, we find misconceptions of its purpose.
Some conceive of criticism as having an end in itself
and imagine, that when they have read an exhaustive
criticism of a work or of a literature,
they have studied literature itself. The detriment
of such an unreasoning conception of criticism is
apparent. It is not the office of criticism to take
the place of literature and the critic, who attempts
to reproduce the work criticised, forgets that even
the very best representation which he can give is
rendered unnecessary and is excelled by the perusal
of the work itself.
On the contrary the function of true criticism is
to furnish a guide for PERSONAL STUDY OF LITERATURE.
Accordingly, criticism should be accepted in a suggestive
way rather than as an absolute decision, and
while a critic, by the very nature of his work, is
often forced to make positive assertions, this
need not harm a person who uses criticism in
an intelligent manner, namely, as a stimulus for
personal research, appreciation and enjoyment.
Having thus, in a general way determined upon
the true functions of literary criticism, we have a
standard by which we can estimate the relative value
of different methods of criticism. If a method is
capable of serving as a true guide for personal study,
if it furthermore brings with it a stimulus for personal
research, appreciation and enjoyment, then it
must be classed as true criticism: if it does not accomplish
these ends, or does so only partially, it
will be open to objection.
The first method we shall consider is the most
common and primitive, — criticism founded upon
personal taste and considerations. There is a tendency
in man to criticise a work on the general
vague impression that it makes upon him, and this
tendency is especially pronounced in an uneducated
person. If the views, sentiments, and
intellectual range of a literary work happen
to be in line with his own, such a man is apt
to pronounce and recommend it at once, as
one of the best books he ever read. But
should the book perchance be against his pet
ideas or sentiments he would in all probability see
no good in it; and should its range of thought surpass
his power of comprehension he would be liable
to decry it. as dull, tiresome and uninteresting.

Images from this collection may be downloaded for non-commercial educational and research purposes on the condition that The University of South Dakota, Archives and Special Collections is credited as the source. For permission to use a particular item for any other purpose, such as publishing, video production, exhibits, product presentations, interior design, or advertising, you must contact The University of South Dakota, Archives and Special Collections. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright.